- Joined
- Oct 9, 2010
- Messages
- 7,533
- Format
- 35mm RF
Yes.
And failures are the best way to learn.
You do recall that your initial statement was about learning to see, don't you?
So why even bother to take a photo.When printing 35mm negatives, I use multi-grade paper with no contrast control and a condenser head with same developer. I have simplified my darkroom work to just print what I saw in the viewfinder.
So why even bother to take a photo.
You seem to be able to see everything that would be in the photo already. So why bother taking it?
I am not sure I understand why you think you have sinned. Something I said?If the original is a transparency (e.g., Panatomic-X developed in a reversal kit), or color neg/slide. Then I am not interested at this time in printing in the darkroom. If brush and scribe retouching is impossible due to horrendous processing (air bells or low levels). I have a few rolls of those but I switched to steel tanks and agitate fiercely now. Steel tanks vs. Paterson probably made the most difference. For those I am sorry brother faberryman, I have sinned.
Because in a few rare cases I use that Adobe product to reveal an image. It goes against all I stand for.I am not sure I understand why you think you have sinned. I asked those questions of cliveh because he said changing contrast was a failure of vision, and if you were going to do that, you might as well be using Photoshop.
I understand his rubric. I just don’t see why his rubric is any more valid than another photographer’s rubric that is identical in all respects except that he has decided to always print on a particular manufacturer’s grade 3 paper, or another photographer’s rubric that is identical in all respects except that he uses a different paper developer which results in a somewhat different contrast. You have to do it my way with my chosen materials or else you might as well use Photoshop? Really?And cliveh is HCB. He knows of what he says.
It is sad to have to say this, one should probably stand for greater things than the opposition to using an image-editing program.Because in a few rare cases I use that Adobe product to reveal an image. It goes against all I stand for
While I would like to agree, I believe that is up to the photographer. Some are geared more towards the final print as being their primary goal. Some are more geared more towards the original seeing and making the image as their primary goals. Some use various forms of hybrids of the two approaches. All these approaches to photography are valid, all will create a different approach to cropping.I beg to differ. In the darkroom you print your vision from the camera. Any manipulation of contrast or cropping is a failure of your original capture of the image. If you feel a need to manipulate the image, you may as well study Adobe photoshop.
I’ve told the story of the day I went to pick my boy up from a camping trip and got “busted” with an OM adapter on a Canon Digital Rebel by a dad, Reed Graham and he looked shocked and said “Bill! I thought you stood for something!!!”It is sad to have to say this, one should probably stand for greater things than the opposition to using an image-editing program.
Well if you committed the mortal sin of using an image editing program, you could have salvaged them pretty easily.I’ve told the story of the day I went to pick my boy up from a camping trip and got “busted” with an OM adapter on a Canon Digital Rebel by a dad, Reed Graham and he looked shocked and said “Bill! I thought you stood for something!!!”
The pictures that day were useless because I had the white balance set to tungsten.
I beg to differ. In the darkroom you print your vision from the camera. Any manipulation of contrast or cropping is a failure of your original capture of the image. If you feel a need to manipulate the image, you may as well study Adobe photoshop.
And cliveh is HCB.
You seem to be able to see everything that would be in the photo already. So why bother taking it?
His images prove his approach is valid. I agree with faberryman’s point that his rubric isn’t necessarily right for everyone. No, cliveh has so much experience that he’s like superman at the bar on the top floor telling the newcomer that there’s a breeze at the 42nd floor that picks you up and brings you right back up to the bar if you jump out…I'm sad that cliveh learns nothing from his time in the darkroom. I get lots of joy from the discoveries I make there.
Actually, it is more like "I photograph things in order to see what they look like printed on variable contrast paper without a contrast filter." It is certainly one approach, but I don't think the only valid alternative is to learn Photoshop.I like this. Sort of pushing Winogrand's logic to its utmost limit. As he said "I photograph things in order to see what they look like photographed," you could argue that there is no point taking a photograph of something if you already know what the thing you are photographing will look like photographed.
It is sad to have to say this, one should probably stand for greater things than the opposition to using an image-editing program.
Actually, it is more like "I photograph things in order to see what they look like printed on variable contrast paper without a contrast filter." It is certainly one approach, but I don't think the only valid alternative is to learn Photoshop.
Well at least you didn't continue down the gatekeeping path and declare all those who crop or do anything different from you aren't photographers.I beg to differ. In the darkroom you print your vision from the camera. Any manipulation of contrast or cropping is a failure of your original capture of the image. If you feel a need to manipulate the image, you may as well study Adobe photoshop.
...
Also I think 135-film size aspect ratio is a bit problematic, I have always been struggling with it. Dunno if the issue here is really that people shoot on bad aspect ratio and end up cropping lot in post because of that? I don't think anyone really wants to shoot so that you always need to crop afterwards? That is always extra work, who wants that.
I try to get the image framed as close as possible to what I'd like to see on a print. If I later see a superior crop or other adjustment in the darkroom, that is in no way a failure: it is a success of vision that results in a better print.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?